Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Solving our biggest national
problems is a very simple matter -- on paper. The major obstacle to progress in
America is the annoying tendency of our political leaders to speak in useless
generalities.

Republicans: “We will never
vote to raise taxes.” Hooray!

Democrats: “We will never
vote to cut social security.” Woohoo!

Why are lawmakers so afraid of
having a civil conversation on the specifics?

Today, somebody earning $113
million a year doesn’t pay a penny more in social security taxes than somebody
making $113 thousand a year. Most rational Republicans think that’s
ridiculous. But as long as their “leaders” keep calling a fair fix a “tax
increase,” inequity will prevail.

Conversely, there are now 400
percent more Americans -- age 65 or older -- than there were in 1940. And they
are living an average of five years longer. Most rational Democrats think a
modest increase in the eligibility age for social security is perfectly
reasonable. But as long as their “leaders” continue to characterize common
sense as a “benefit cut,” nothing will ever happen.

It’s not just social security.
The same is true for almost any “difficult” issue you can imagine.

MostRepublicans
believe background checks should be required before buying a gun. Democrats
agree. Yet there are no background checks.

MostDemocrats
accept the proposition that the path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants
should be long and tough. Republicans agree. Yet there is no immigration
reform.

Most Republicans think it’s
absurd that the government can’t shop around for the lowest price when it comes
to prescription drugs for seniors. Democrats agree. Yet the drug lobby still
trumps the taxpayers.

Both conservatives and
liberals believe that our allies should be shouldering a larger share of the
cost of their own national defense. Yet overseas military spending is still off
the charts.

Ditto taxes. I can’t find
anybody who actually believes that a hospital worker in America should pay a
higher effective tax rate than a hedge fund manager. Can you?

If politicians actually got
down to the specifics of almost any major public policy issue, party labels and
political ideologies would magically give way to good old fashion common sense.
Unfortunately, in Congress these days, common sense is not so common.

There are a million reasons
for this -- chief of which is a rightfully ticked off public that hasn’t seen
any progress in their paychecks for more than three decades. And the fact that
JP Morgan Chase just agreed to pay a record $13 billion fine for ripping the
heart and soul out of everybody’s most important asset -- their home -- doesn’t
even begin to heal that wound.

Sure, we’re angry. And yes,
there are many other factors: gerrymandering, Citizens United, talk radio, 24/7
cable news networks -- pick your poison. Legislators, lobbyists, and luminaries
of the chatter class all profit handsomely from a polarizing and ultimately
paralyzing focus on the general at the expense of the specific.

Just look at the recent government
shutdown. Standard & Poor’s pegged the cost to the country during a fragile
recovery at $24 billion which translates intoa
half point in lost GDP this quarter. Yet Ted Cruz’s campaign coffers are
millions of dollars richer.

The New York Times’ editorial
page assessed the damage to American economic growth since 2010 as: “over $300
billion in lost output and roughly 2 million fewer jobs than would otherwise
have been the case.”

Never raise taxes? Never cut
spending?

The time has come for us to
insist that when it comes to governing, leaders on both sides should never say
never again. As long as reckless political behavior is rewarded with
re-election, politicians will always vote to protect their own jobs -- even if
it costs you yours.

Sunday, October 20, 2013

THE HIGH COST OF LOW POLITICS

It was never wise or necessary to cut the deficit while the economy remained weak. The political imperative to do so, driven by Republicans and clumsily adopted by Democrats, has had devastating results. Over the past three years, the depth and pace of federal spending cuts have reduced growth by about 0.7 percentage point, equivalent to over $300 billion in lost output and roughly 2 million fewer jobs than would otherwise have been the case. That so-called fiscal drag has been the single biggest weight on economic growth.

To the extent that deficit reduction is politically unavoidable, Mr. Obama and the Democrats should insist that it come mainly from higher taxes rather than spending cuts. Tax increases on high-income individuals and large corporations are less damaging to the economy than deep spending cuts, and income tax increases to date have affected only a fraction of the top 1 percent of filers, leaving room to raise taxes at the top of the income ladder without harming the economy.

Forcing Republicans to relent for now in their extortionate ways is a tactical victory for Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats in the long budget war. What’s still needed is a budget that taxes and spends with the aim of boosting the economy so that the majority of Americans will, at long last, begin to benefit from the recovery.

This time is
different. What is at stake in this government shutdown forced by a radical Tea
Party minority is nothing less than the principle upon which our democracy is
based: majority rule. President Obama must not give in to this hostage taking —
not just because Obamacare is at stake, but because the future of how we govern
ourselves is at stake.

What we’re seeing here is how three structural
changes that have been building in American politics have now, together,
reached a tipping point — creating a world in which a small minority in
Congress can not only hold up their own party but the whole government. And
this is the really scary part: The lawmakers doing this can do so with high
confidence that they personally will not be politically punished, and may, in
fact, be rewarded.

When extremists feel that insulated
from playing by the traditional rules of our system, if we do not defend those
rules then our democracy is imperiled.

This danger was neatly captured by Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank, when he wrote:“Democrats
howled about ‘extortion’ and ‘hostage taking,’ which Boehner seemed to confirm
when he came to the floor and offered: ‘All the Senate has to do is say ‘yes,’
and the government is funded tomorrow.’ It was the legislative equivalent of
saying, ‘Give me the money and nobody gets hurt.’ ”

“Give me the money and nobody gets
hurt.” How did we get here?

First, by taking gerrymandering to a new level.
The 2010 election gave Republican state legislatures around the
country unprecedented power to redraw political boundaries, which they used to
create even more “safe, lily-white” Republican strongholds that are, in effect,
an “alternative universe” to the country’s diverse reality.

Between 2000 and 2010, the number of
strongly Democratic districts decreased from 144 before redistricting to 136
afterward. The number of strongly Republican districts increased from 175 to
183. “Republicans would need to mess up pretty badly to lose their House majority in the near future,” said Republican analyst Charlie Cook. The numbers suggest that the fix is in for any election
featuring a fairly neutral environment. In other words,
there is little risk of political punishment for the Tea Party members now
holding the country hostage.

Meanwhile, there's the Supreme Court’s inane
Citizens United decision. Last month, for the first time ever in Colorado, two state
senators who voted for universal background checks on gun purchases lost their
seats in a recall election engineered by gun extremists and reportedly financed
with some $400,000 from the National Rifle Association. You’re elected, you
vote your conscience on a narrow issue, but now determined opponents don’t have
to wait for the next election. With enough money, they can get rid of you in
weeks.

Finally, the rise of a separate
G.O.P. (and a liberal) media universe — from talk-radio hosts, to Web sites to
Fox News — has created another gravity-free zone, where there is no punishment
for extreme behavior, but there’s 1,000 lashes on Twitter if you deviate from
the hard-line and great coverage to those who are most extreme.

When
politicians only operate inside these bubbles, they lose the habit of
persuasion and opt only for coercion. After all, they must be right. Rush
Limbaugh told them so.

These “legal” structural changes in
money, media and redistricting are not going away. They are superempowering
small political movements to act in extreme ways without consequences and
thereby stymie majority rule.

If democracy means anything, it means that, if
you are outvoted, you accept the results and prepare for the next election.
Republicans are refusing to do that. It shows contempt for the democratic
process.

President Obama is not defending
health care. He’s defending the health of our democracy. Every American who
cherishes that should stand with him.

Thursday, October 3, 2013

First Bar: Obama's 2014 Budget Proposal

Second Bar: 2011 Debt Limit Deal

Third Bar: 2014 Senate Budget Proposal

Fourth Bar: The Sequester level of funding which the President and Senate have already agreed to, and which would easily pass the House. But Speaker Boehner prefers to shut down the government rather than permit a simple up or down vote.